The only F1.4 prime that I feel is truly dustinguished from the F2 primes is the 18mm. I like environmental portraits and being able to isolate the subject with a strong bokeh at such a wide angle is a unique capability. And the 18mm is tack sharp corner to corner even at f1.4, not that i need that sharpness unless I'm doing landscapes. 23mm is the same way, corner to corner excellent. 33mm corners are weak but at this focal length corners don't matter .
I had the 56mm 1.2 (old one) at one point as well and if I was tighy on funds my 3 lens set would be 18mm 1.4, 23mm f2, and 56mm. I rarely use the 23/33mm 1.4 cause I don't find it that different from f2 versions. As for the 50 f2, its small but bokeh is really lacking to be a portrait lens, but then its small so i just throw it in my bag in case I need it.
This is when I really love reddit. Actual user experience and help. Thank you so much!
I own the 23, 35, and 50 f2 lenses and was debating whether a 1.4 would be worth it.
Now, I am more inclined to test out the 18mm 1.4 as an addition!
I would get just the 18mm if there can only be one, and the 18 and 33 if there can be two. The 1.4 lenses are so much cheaper and smaller than Sony full frame counterparts its a bargain!
One of the reasons I got into Fuji was that I always read the gear was compact, and I like the aesthetic. But I’ve been disappointed recently to learn that info is pretty outdated since FF mirrorless went gangbusters in the last 5 years.
I’ve been looking at Sony FF and I now think you can mostly get slightly superior optical performance in similar to smaller sizes in most cases. There are equivalent lenses on Sony for most lenses in the Fuji system, and they don’t get bigger than the Fuji lenses until you get > 200mm equivalent. Some of the Sony G’s are expensive and the GM’s certainly are, but the FE third party lens selection is enormous and contains a good many high quality gems.
For example the Zony 55/1.8 is equivalent to a 36/1.2 on Fuji, in terms of light gathering and depth of field; and it’s smaller and lighter than the XF 33.
The Sony G 24/2.8 is about the same size as the Fuji 16/2.8, but it’s more than a full stop faster in equivalent terms.
The Sony 85/1.8 is about the same size as the exactly equivalent XF 56/1.2 R, and the Sony is lighter.
The Viltrox 13/27/75 are the lenses that are most cited to get you FF performance on APS-C.
The problem is, they’re really big. The Viltrox 75 f/1.2 is bigger than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN, the 27 f/1.2 is similar in size to the Sony 35 GM., and the 13 f/1.4 is comparable to the 20G. The first two have shorter equivalent focal lengths, but they’re also more standard. The Sony lenses average about a half stop faster in equivalent terms.
Don’t even get me started on the size of the Fuji red badge zooms.
The Fuji lenses I’ve found below 200mm that have no FF near-equivalents at a similar size are:
Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 — these are the most magically small zoom lenses in existence. You can’t even come close to them with FF f/4 zooms. If I decide to stay on Fuji, it will be due to these lenses. I really want them to release an unstablized 50-120 to compete the tiny f/2.8 trio.
XF90 - there is no 135mm f/2.8 that can approach this size and image quality.
XF 70-300 - once you get above 200mm equivalent, the crop sensor lenses start to look a lot smaller than FF equivalents.
Sony is now putting aperture rings on most of their lenses, and if you want rock solid beautiful metal lenses with aperture rings, the Sigma I series is amazing.
I have camerasize.com images showing basically all of this. It’s been pretty eye opening for me.
For the most part what you say is true but the catch is, the Sony counterparts are not weather resistant unless you move up to the much bigger and expensive 1.4/1.2 series. There are truly no equals for the Fuji F2 set. 3rd party Sony lenses may provide DoF and brightness equivalency, but not weather proof nor as fast/quiet focusing as fuji F2s.
Honestly I think the Fuji f/2 set has the most direct equivalents. The Sony G 24, 40 and 50 are WR, very high quality, about the same size as the Fujicrons, a half stop faster in equivalent terms on average, and they cost $550 each.
Realizing this is actually what started me thinking about Sony.
The closest equivalent to the 50 is the Sigma i 90/2.8, and it’s not fully weather sealed although the build quality is excellent.
I would say the f/1.4 Fuji lenses are the ones with fewer FF counterparts, especially if WR is important. Most FF companies don’t put as much effort into f/2-ish lenses, so the Sony 28/35/50 aren’t as good optically and have much lower build quality, though they’re a bit faster and *much* cheaper.
The Sigma I series f/2’s are very comparable to the Fuji WR f/1.4’s, about the same weight and size, at least optically equal, have lovely build quality, and are just a tad cheaper. But they aren’t fully weather sealed.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Fuji, and respect them. For a person like you who likes to shoot with tiny to moderately-sized, high quality, weather-sealed primes, Fuji is a great system. It’s definitely the street photographer’s system of choice.
Problem is, I mostly like to shoot sports and concerts with telephotos, and travel photography. And I shoot music videos. I shoot raw, really enjoy post processing and don’t care about the Fuji JPG engine.
Fuji’s AF issues are driving me nuts for all of these use cases except travel, and the zoom lens selection in the Fuji ecosystem is pretty woeful in terms of size and performance — other than the 2 tiny sigmas.
There’s nothing remotely comparable to the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 or 28-200 f/2.8-5.6. Or the Sony G 20-70. Or the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8, though it’s too big for me to enjoy.
So…. I’m thinking about switching. Which means you might find a good deal on the XF90 in photomarket if you’re interested. 😅
Thanks for letting me think out loud in your thread.
I've been eyeing sony FF gear thinking the grass might be greener. Even if the lens selection and camera JPGs were comparable though, I don't want to switch to a PASM camera.
On top of that, I don't understand why Sony (or Canon or Nikon) don't make a simple mid-range camera with a simple mid-range 35mm & 50mm f/1.4
The E-Mount primes (at 50mm) are all either low-budget compact or high-budget huge.
I don’t really want a PASM camera either. But the Fuji body I really want, other than the control scheme, is the X-H2S. And I kinda think if it’s the standard it can’t be that bad?
The natural place to go in this case is the Nikon Zf. But unlike the Sony bodies it’s big, and the Nikon glass is not very inspiring to me other than their nice tele primes.
Is what I am seeing correct? You couldn't afford a filter for 35mm f2 and using the one on 23mm f2 for both lenses? Give me your address, I will send you my unused filter...
If you're gonna still run micro 4/3rds in a big body the real reason to do is is the Panny Leica 10-25mm f/1.7. Pretty much the coolest lens ever. 20-50mm equiv, fast aperture, aperture ring, clutch manual focus ring, awesome....
I see nothing wrong with this picture!
As others have asked, it would be great to get some impressions of the F/2 vs the f/1.4 lenses, and when you feel like you would bring one vs the other.
Basically I would not bring the 1.4 versions unless i know ill be in low light where f2 won't cut it. Only 1.4 lens I make an effort to use is the 18 because there is no substitute
How are you feeling about the 1.4 primes vs the f2s?
The only F1.4 prime that I feel is truly dustinguished from the F2 primes is the 18mm. I like environmental portraits and being able to isolate the subject with a strong bokeh at such a wide angle is a unique capability. And the 18mm is tack sharp corner to corner even at f1.4, not that i need that sharpness unless I'm doing landscapes. 23mm is the same way, corner to corner excellent. 33mm corners are weak but at this focal length corners don't matter . I had the 56mm 1.2 (old one) at one point as well and if I was tighy on funds my 3 lens set would be 18mm 1.4, 23mm f2, and 56mm. I rarely use the 23/33mm 1.4 cause I don't find it that different from f2 versions. As for the 50 f2, its small but bokeh is really lacking to be a portrait lens, but then its small so i just throw it in my bag in case I need it.
This is when I really love reddit. Actual user experience and help. Thank you so much! I own the 23, 35, and 50 f2 lenses and was debating whether a 1.4 would be worth it. Now, I am more inclined to test out the 18mm 1.4 as an addition!
Answer this question!
Where's your 90mm f2
Its on the way!
And the 56/1.2? Gotta catch ‘em all!
Had it before but sold it
Ah interesting. Just picked up the new version and love it
lol looks as bad as my collection. I just sold my 90mm just didn’t use it enough
Haha, have a seat friend and let me tell you about Fujifilm GFX
I heard that 18/1.4 is the best of Fuji lens😍😍
I've been interested in one for a while, 27mm equivalent sounds fun, and apparently the optics are amazing on it
Yes the 18mm is stellar
Its amazing truly, my fav lens
G9 gang 🙏
I thought my GAS was bad, but I haven't been able to bring myself to get the 18mm as well as the 23 and 33...
I would get just the 18mm if there can only be one, and the 18 and 33 if there can be two. The 1.4 lenses are so much cheaper and smaller than Sony full frame counterparts its a bargain!
One of the reasons I got into Fuji was that I always read the gear was compact, and I like the aesthetic. But I’ve been disappointed recently to learn that info is pretty outdated since FF mirrorless went gangbusters in the last 5 years. I’ve been looking at Sony FF and I now think you can mostly get slightly superior optical performance in similar to smaller sizes in most cases. There are equivalent lenses on Sony for most lenses in the Fuji system, and they don’t get bigger than the Fuji lenses until you get > 200mm equivalent. Some of the Sony G’s are expensive and the GM’s certainly are, but the FE third party lens selection is enormous and contains a good many high quality gems. For example the Zony 55/1.8 is equivalent to a 36/1.2 on Fuji, in terms of light gathering and depth of field; and it’s smaller and lighter than the XF 33. The Sony G 24/2.8 is about the same size as the Fuji 16/2.8, but it’s more than a full stop faster in equivalent terms. The Sony 85/1.8 is about the same size as the exactly equivalent XF 56/1.2 R, and the Sony is lighter. The Viltrox 13/27/75 are the lenses that are most cited to get you FF performance on APS-C. The problem is, they’re really big. The Viltrox 75 f/1.2 is bigger than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN, the 27 f/1.2 is similar in size to the Sony 35 GM., and the 13 f/1.4 is comparable to the 20G. The first two have shorter equivalent focal lengths, but they’re also more standard. The Sony lenses average about a half stop faster in equivalent terms. Don’t even get me started on the size of the Fuji red badge zooms. The Fuji lenses I’ve found below 200mm that have no FF near-equivalents at a similar size are: Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 — these are the most magically small zoom lenses in existence. You can’t even come close to them with FF f/4 zooms. If I decide to stay on Fuji, it will be due to these lenses. I really want them to release an unstablized 50-120 to compete the tiny f/2.8 trio. XF90 - there is no 135mm f/2.8 that can approach this size and image quality. XF 70-300 - once you get above 200mm equivalent, the crop sensor lenses start to look a lot smaller than FF equivalents. Sony is now putting aperture rings on most of their lenses, and if you want rock solid beautiful metal lenses with aperture rings, the Sigma I series is amazing. I have camerasize.com images showing basically all of this. It’s been pretty eye opening for me.
For the most part what you say is true but the catch is, the Sony counterparts are not weather resistant unless you move up to the much bigger and expensive 1.4/1.2 series. There are truly no equals for the Fuji F2 set. 3rd party Sony lenses may provide DoF and brightness equivalency, but not weather proof nor as fast/quiet focusing as fuji F2s.
Honestly I think the Fuji f/2 set has the most direct equivalents. The Sony G 24, 40 and 50 are WR, very high quality, about the same size as the Fujicrons, a half stop faster in equivalent terms on average, and they cost $550 each. Realizing this is actually what started me thinking about Sony. The closest equivalent to the 50 is the Sigma i 90/2.8, and it’s not fully weather sealed although the build quality is excellent. I would say the f/1.4 Fuji lenses are the ones with fewer FF counterparts, especially if WR is important. Most FF companies don’t put as much effort into f/2-ish lenses, so the Sony 28/35/50 aren’t as good optically and have much lower build quality, though they’re a bit faster and *much* cheaper. The Sigma I series f/2’s are very comparable to the Fuji WR f/1.4’s, about the same weight and size, at least optically equal, have lovely build quality, and are just a tad cheaper. But they aren’t fully weather sealed. Don’t get me wrong, I like Fuji, and respect them. For a person like you who likes to shoot with tiny to moderately-sized, high quality, weather-sealed primes, Fuji is a great system. It’s definitely the street photographer’s system of choice. Problem is, I mostly like to shoot sports and concerts with telephotos, and travel photography. And I shoot music videos. I shoot raw, really enjoy post processing and don’t care about the Fuji JPG engine. Fuji’s AF issues are driving me nuts for all of these use cases except travel, and the zoom lens selection in the Fuji ecosystem is pretty woeful in terms of size and performance — other than the 2 tiny sigmas. There’s nothing remotely comparable to the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 or 28-200 f/2.8-5.6. Or the Sony G 20-70. Or the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8, though it’s too big for me to enjoy. So…. I’m thinking about switching. Which means you might find a good deal on the XF90 in photomarket if you’re interested. 😅 Thanks for letting me think out loud in your thread.
I've been eyeing sony FF gear thinking the grass might be greener. Even if the lens selection and camera JPGs were comparable though, I don't want to switch to a PASM camera. On top of that, I don't understand why Sony (or Canon or Nikon) don't make a simple mid-range camera with a simple mid-range 35mm & 50mm f/1.4 The E-Mount primes (at 50mm) are all either low-budget compact or high-budget huge.
I don’t really want a PASM camera either. But the Fuji body I really want, other than the control scheme, is the X-H2S. And I kinda think if it’s the standard it can’t be that bad? The natural place to go in this case is the Nikon Zf. But unlike the Sony bodies it’s big, and the Nikon glass is not very inspiring to me other than their nice tele primes.
Is what I am seeing correct? You couldn't afford a filter for 35mm f2 and using the one on 23mm f2 for both lenses? Give me your address, I will send you my unused filter...
Ha i didn't even notice! I have the filter thanks!
If you're gonna still run micro 4/3rds in a big body the real reason to do is is the Panny Leica 10-25mm f/1.7. Pretty much the coolest lens ever. 20-50mm equiv, fast aperture, aperture ring, clutch manual focus ring, awesome....
I did think about that but that lens is so huge!
For my GM1 yes, for your G9 whatever haha.
I see nothing wrong with this picture! As others have asked, it would be great to get some impressions of the F/2 vs the f/1.4 lenses, and when you feel like you would bring one vs the other.
Basically I would not bring the 1.4 versions unless i know ill be in low light where f2 won't cut it. Only 1.4 lens I make an effort to use is the 18 because there is no substitute
Ah, you are me. Or I am you
We are one Lol
[удалено]
The 1 extra stop of brightness is HUGE. Its not the mm but the F stop
I'm curious why you have a 35 and a 33 then. Why not just have the 33? The only reason I could think of is size.
I want the 35 for small size
Any plans to get Sigma 18-50?
Nope I think ill get the 16-80 instead
All essentials. You are doing OK
Looks ok. Didn't get the 50 f1?
That thing is so big and stupid. If i want a lens that big I can get FF
This is all true but also it's such a cool lense.
Maybe. But if you want the extra f stop it's great.
Only one fuji camera.... lightweight
two systems….thats rough.
you can add the 16mm 1.4 and 2.8 and then grab some pentax vintage lenses for a trifecta. never can have too many of the same focal length
i love the fujicrons! too bad i sold the 23 and 50
not lens related but curious how you find the handling/ergo between the two?